Superearths orbit nearby stars...

[Flarega]

Also, changing a single variable in an equation, seven pages and two sources to partially unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity is like someone thinking they're original for making a quadruple stuffed oreo.

[Kryssan]

http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o.../bookmarks.jpg

Why do you have Wikipedia bookmarks? It's not healthy.

[Mizango]

Decided to post this in the spirit of Christmas. I hope you guys enjoy because it is a really goofy and funny read.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1205233544.htm

Also, no matter what you guys believe or whatever I hope each of you have a great day tomorrow and a great weekend. Enjoy your friends, family and be safe out there. I mean this is the most non homo way possible but I love you guys and appreciate each and every one of you. I know were at each others throats atm but I omit no one from my previous statement.

Ill see you guys next week! Ill still try to check in by phone until then

[Max™]

Spoiler: show

Also, changing a single variable in an equation, seven pages and two sources to partially unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity is like someone thinking they're original for making a quadruple stuffed oreo.

Those are what I whipped together when I first realized the implications of adjusting the hard restraint on causality, basically just getting the idea put together outside of my head while I started looking around for similar theories, disproofs, and holes in the idea in general, while considering how to get it all written out in a provable format.


It's a tad bit more complex than just the single value being adjusted, as there is the entire range of phenomena beyond the adjustment point to consider now.

Ultimately though, since it first came to me, I've yet to find an actual experimental result showing where to place that value. Nor have I found a reason against placing it to occur anywhere between the masses where quantum effects disappear, and zero mass. The only reason TO set it at zero mass is to preserve an absolute limit on causality, allowing only the type which Einstein preferred aesthetically.

If it were located properly, you'd never notice the violation of causal expectations "up here" in our day to day experience. Only when you examined the masses where it reached a sufficiently large value would you notice it.

It just so happens that we discovered a type of curious behavior around the atomic mass scales. The type of odd behavior which one would expect if there weren't an arbitrary cap on causal interaction. The type of odd behavior which Einstein surely realized would show up if he didn't restrict that interaction.


Of course, I don't know what I'm talking about, so take this with a grain of salt, but the point remains: if you did not know about the predictions of quantum mechanics, and only had GR + experimental results to work with, you'd have no reason to assume causality held over locality, and could deduce the "odd" effects which would be found at small enough masses from Relativity alone.

Incidentally, I love encyclopedias, particularly ones which are required to connect to their sources, as Wiki is. If I've been pulling everything I claim I know from Wiki, then I need to set that rate of time constant at higher than I thought, because I was pre-interacting with it across nearly 15 years of time... which is quite a feat.

Wikipedia is like an abstract for real sources of information, you can get the gist of an idea from it, and then move further into the subject by roaming around the plethora of cited references. It is also a really good place to poke around for various mathematical whatnots, as it links you to all sorts of different, yet related, concepts within it, and there is little vandalism there.

Though I'm sure some are tempted to go edit the page on Pi to state it is "exactly 3!" for shock value alone.